They've been slowly rewriting it in Rust, but it's still mostly C++. And no, the claim isn't that Rust is impervious to security bugs, but that safe Rust (i.e. Rust that doesn't use the unsafe features) is memory safe, and memory safety issues cause around 70% of security bugs.

Anyone stubbornly clinging to Windows 7 or 8 now has two choices: upgrade or stay stuck on outdated software.

Two options, you fool. One choice.

Googling works best if you know the proper term for the thing you're looking for. LLMs can help you find something if you can explain it, but don't know the proper term for it. Sure, sometimes it gives you nonsense. You have to check the answer. But it's still useful, so long as you know its flaws.

Copyright wasn't originally about providing income to artists, though, nor was it about generating popular entertainment. The first modern copyright law, the Statute of Anne was "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning...", and the USA constitution copyright clause is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts ...". I don't think further copyright restrictions should be imposed in order to secure income for artists, or secure the generation of popular entertainment. I'm not even sure the USA government has a right to do that, without a constitutional amendment (not that I think it makes a difference). I think we should be asking would further copyright restrictions encourage learning, or promote the progress of science and useful arts. And, if so, would that be worth the additional restrictions on freedom?

I've found ChatGPT to be often quite helpful. It's not very smart, but it is very knowledgeable. I just know to double check what it says before depending on it.

I can see why you'd think that, but, apparently, for many use cases, trees are all you need. Rust has been rated "most loved" programming language in the Stack Overflow developer survey for 8 years in a row, where "most loved" is defined as the language with the highest proportion of current users who want to continue using it, I think. So it seems that people find the benefit of memory safety without garbage collection to be worth the cost of only using trees.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Admittedly I don't know Rust, but from what I've read, it does support mutable tree structures. In fact, if I understand correctly, its memory safety is basically all about mutable tree structures. I think its limitation is essentially that it only supports tree structures. So you can't have doubly-linked lists, or directed acyclic graphs (other than trees), or things like that.

Building on other people's ideas has absolutely helped us in general. For a start, we're able to communicate because we copy the vocabulary and grammar others use. But pretty much every field of human endeavor has benefited from progressive improvement based on earlier ideas: medicine, construction, transport, information technology, you name it. Copying from other people is so important, that many countries require children to attend around a decade of compulsory education, much of which is spent learning other people's ideas.

And it has helped in this particular case. It's lead to around a 9% increase over the previous best. And I'd be extremely surprised if that itself wasn't based on earlier work.

Here's a reference for that. (Not still available at the original site, unfortunately, you can get it via the Wayback Machine.)
Lewis, S. J. (2014). The brain and gender dysphoria. http://transcience-project.org...

"One of the issues with the existing ChatGPT is what they call in the field 'hallucinating' â" I call it lying,"

I'm not sure this is fair. Lying is knowingly making a false statement, and I'm not sure GPT3/4 knows it's making false statements. I'd hazard a guess that, since GPT3/4 doesn't experience the world directly, it may suppose that "evidence", like language, is a social construction.

I'd guess perhaps he means Raspberry Pi Desktop. It's designed with old under-powered x86 PCs in mind, but I guess there's probably no reason you couldn't run it on new PCs. It is 32 bit only, though, I think.

Registration with the copyright office isn't necessary for copyright to apply, so I doubt an incomplete or inaccurate registration would prevent copyright from applying.

Well, maybe in some sense it can "grab a packet of chips", but in reality, it's just following an algorithm, so it's not intelligently grabbing a packet of chips, and it will never replace the nuance and creativity of human chip grabbing.

The only serious attempt I'm aware of to calculate the economically optimal copyright term is Pollock (2009) "Forever minus a day? Calculating the optimal copyright term." It estimates 15 years. This starts with the assumption, though, that we should use the current copyright system and only change the term. I agree with you that having big media companies copyright derivatives of other people's work isn't ideal. I'm not even convinced that people have a moral right to copyright on their own work, so I certainly don't think people or companies have a moral right to copyright on derivatives of other people's work. I'd prefer a relatively short copyright term, and a longer copyleft term.

AFAIK, A quantum computer isn't a computer in the classical sense, it's more like a maths co-processor. You load data into it, it performs an operation, and you read data out. The number of qubits is the number of bits you read out, but what you load in includes relationships between those bits, I think. Take this with a grain of salt, though, I'm not really sure.